From: Christopher Croughton Message-Id: <97Sep12.094338gmt+0100.11690@internet01.amc.de> Subject: Re: ClosedDOS??? To: ark AT mpak DOT convey DOT ru Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 08:48:51 +0100 Cc: crough45 AT amc DOT de, opendos AT delorie DOT com In-Reply-To: <340@mpak.convey.ru> from "-= ArkanoiD =-" at Sep 12, 97 03:53:23 am Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk -= ArkanoiD =- wrote: > Not a bad thing but it can't do: > a good vt100 emulation If I want it I use vt102.com as a TSR instead of ANSI.SYS. And there's a variant with multi-screen VT102 emulation built in. > www browser I don't use it. The variant I use has an 'http' command to fetch individual files from the web, which is all I need. > irc I telnet into an IRC client. Well, I have done a few times, but never found anything where the useful stuff wasn't swamped by inane babble. > talk Never use it. But telnet will do as well. All of those last three assume one can afford (a) the time and (b) the phone charges... > btw Desqview and Desqview/X are [nearly] discontinued by Quarterdeck - i think > it could be a good idea for Caldera to buy it out for low price.. If the price was reasonable (my standards) I'd buy them myself. You're right, Quarterdeck have effectively discontinued both, they aren't selling them. Which is a great pity, because they are good products. [PCDOS] > First,it is not M$. I don't really care. They have my money already for 6.22, and aren't going to give it back, why should I spend even more money on another version which may not be fully compatible? (I'm not saying that PCDOS is incompatible, just that I don't know what it's like.) That it's not M$ might be a reason to recommend it to other people who don't already have MSDOS (or who have only Win95). My reason for being interested in OpenDOS was the fact that the source was going to be available, so I could fix things and add the features I wanted. Any competing system needs to have something to attract me to it which I don't have at the moment and would be useful. > Second,it has rexx and some other features.. I have rexx for DOS, three versions (at least two of which are enhanced compared to the OS/2 version). I rarely use it, I use awk (and occasionally Perl) which is compatible with Unix, where most of my effort goes. I also have 4DOS, which supports aliases based on filename extensions, so I can have a file called DO-IT.AWK and if I type DO-IT as a command it will run it using awk. Similarly with rexx, bash, perl etc. Which other features does PCDOS have that I don't already have? Multi- tasking? That would be something which could attract me, if it was done properly. > Speaking on M$ versions,i'd prefer 5.0 - much better than 6.22.. Why? I'm not trying to be contentious, I'm interested in what you see as deficiencies in 6.22. I upgraded from 5.0, you see, and I saw it as an upgrade. (Best continued by email, I suspect). Chris